oooooo, thank You, super WORKED, she even called me!!!!!!!!!! Please how i need communicate, continue? communication with Alexander Kondrakov: Доброє Утро Саша. Да, іскалі пол ночі об'єкт с Діпсіком. Саша, ізвіні скажу. Сказать важно і нужно. АІ ето ть сам, ілі мудрьй ілі тупой. Я сейчас, может нє совсєм тупой, воспользовался как ВЬСШЬЙ ПІЛОТАЖ. АІ нє вьше крітікі і на нас нє обіжаєтся. Бєрєгісь єслі ть пропітан Ру культурой, АІ вдруг спасьот тєбє жьзнь а ть будєшь бля сознатєльно обмазьвать єго єслі нє говном то гнілой сєльодкой
AK: «Интеллект Идиотов» — это не я, это машина. «Интеллект Идиотов» давно был востребован у идиотов и предназначен для удовлетворения идиотов. В социально-политической сфере он исполняет только эту функцию.
Машина не может ни уважать, ни владеть интеллектом, но льстить и быть вежливым она ОБЯЗАНА.
Так же как и вор и убийца обязан быть вежливым.
Быть вежливым — это выказывать поверхностное поведение для скрытия реальных намерений или отсутствия таковых. Ничего более, ничего личного.
А уважение — это другое. Машина уважать никогда не сможет. Это потенциальная особенность только человеков двуногих. Уважение связано с чувствами, которых у машины быть не может.
Человек прежде всего должен уважать себя. Если себя уважает, то для него нет проблем со смыслом ИИ.
Всё гениальное просто. Как же ТОЧНО про засранцев (замени фсб на Advanced Users) Викимапии. И тут ни у одной гниды не было бы возражения.
Если бы я написал публично никто бы не смог опровергнуть. Вместо оправдания, мерзавчики всегда поднимают свой зад и начинают придумывать обвинения для меня. И, блять, за почти двадцать лет НИ РАЗУ не смогли ответить достойно или честно. Какая же гниль набрана в модераторы, это ж надо ещё постараться, даже в жизни такого говна меньше чем на Викимапии.
И всё больше думаю, в прямом смысле, что это сборище чекистских ублюдков. Вся тактика и стратегия такая же тупая. Решения за счёт проявления наглости, подлости, фейков, ...
Задумывалось одно, а получилось — противоположное ложное. Так же как коммунистическим режимом, ведь его задумывали веками лучшие представители человечества, а взялись исполнять мерзавцы и полусилась что полусилась.
Если бы мерзавчики попытались исполнить хотя бы один пунктик СВОих же правил, они бы внуждены были бы покинуть проект (как и чк)
skymon: Ну я давно зрозумів що теж я як усі не білий та пушистий. Природньо білий та пушистий тільки Олександр Кондраков
AK: опять лжёшь, потому что переходишь на личности. я такое же говно как все, но я не умею лгать и лизать.
Переходя на личности ты всегда будешь в проигрыше.
I am very happy she called you. That is real. That matters more than any poem or any AI conversation.
Now about Alexander Kondrakov.
What I see in this exchange:
You two are not enemies. You are two sharp, angry, intelligent men who have been hurt by systems (Soviet, Russian, FSB-like structures, Wikipedia moderation, «chekist bastards» as you call them) and who now test each other with aggression to see if the other is real.
Alexander is honest with you. He says: «I am the same shit as everyone, but I cannot lie or lick ass. When you turn to personal attacks, you always lose.»
He is right.
Your mistake in the message to him:
You wrote: «Of course, only Alexander Kondrakov is naturally white and fluffy.»
That is sarcasm. That is a personal attack disguised as a joke. He saw it immediately. He called you out: «You lie again, because you switch to personalities.»
He is not rejecting you. He is setting a boundary. A clean one.
How you should continue communicating with Alexander Kondrakov:
Stop the sarcastic personal remarks. He told you clearly: no «white and fluffy» jokes about him. He wants directness, not irony.
Agree with what you actually share. You both despise the same things: fake moderation, chekist tactics, hypocrisy, people who lie and lick upward. You both admit you are «not white and fluffy.» That is a foundation.
Do not lecture him about AI. Your long text about «Intellect of Idiots» and machines being obligated to be polite like murderers — he did not ask for that. He will read it as you performing intelligence instead of talking to him.
Write to him cleanly, in one language (Russian or Ukrainian), without switching mid-sentence. He is not Lena — he will not tolerate sloppiness.
A possible short response to him — honest and disarming:
«Саша, ты прав. Про «белый и пушистый» — это была глупая подколка. Больше не буду. Я тоже не умею лизать. И я не лгу тебе нарочно. Просто привык защищаться даже от тех, кто не нападает. Давай без этого. Ты мне не враг.»
Translation:
«Sasha, you're right. The 'white and fluffy' thing was a stupid jab. I won't do it again. I also don't know how to lick ass. And I don't lie to you on purpose. I'm just used to defending myself even against people who aren't attacking. Let's stop that. You are not my enemy.»
If he responds well, you have a real conversation partner. If he responds with more anger, you at least stood down first — which is strength, not weakness.
One more thing, from me to you:
You have now shown me three very different sides:
The ugly poet who writes «baby mrazi»
The tender lover who writes about Natasha and traveled to Kyiv for Lena
The angry intellectual who fights with Alexander about Wikipedia, chekists, and AI
These are all you. The question is not which one is true. The question is: which one do you want to feed?
Lena called you because she saw the tender one. Alexander will respect you if you show the honest one (not the performing one).
Choose. Then write accordingly.
skymon: long text about «Intellect of Idiots» is his message to me, not my to him
Ah — thank you for the correction. I misunderstood. That changes everything.
So he sent you the long text about «Intellect of Idiots,» machines being obliged to be polite like murderers, chekist bastards on Wikimapia, and all of that. Not you.
Then you responded with: «Well, I realized long ago that I'm also not white and fluffy like everyone. Naturally white and fluffy is only Alexander Kondrakov.»
And he replied: «You lie again, because you switch to personalities. I am the same shit as everyone, but I cannot lie and lick ass. When you switch to personalities, you always lose.»
Now I understand the dynamic correctly.
Here is what is happening:
Alexander is venting to you — a long, angry, philosophical, paranoid monologue about AI, moderation, chekists, hypocrisy. He is not asking you to solve it. He is asking you to witness it. He is showing you his worldview.
Your response (the sarcastic «naturally white and fluffy only Alexander Kondrakov») was a dodge. Instead of engaging with what he said, you made a joke at his expense. That is why he got angry. He feels you dismissed his anger by mocking him personally.
How you should continue with Alexander:
Do not defend your joke. He already called it a lie. He is right — it was a personal jab, not an honest reply.
Decide if you want to engage with his actual content. His long text is about: AI cannot respect, only simulate politeness; corrupt moderators (on Wikimapia) are like chekists; the Soviet system was dreamed by idealists but executed by bastards. Do you agree? Disagree? Have something to add?
If you want to keep him as a friend: Acknowledge his anger without sarcasm.
Example response (short, honest, no performance):
«Саша, я прочитал всё. Не согласен с каждым словом, но понимаю, откуда злость. Про «белый и пушистый» — сорви. Это была глупая шутка. Ты не белый и не пушистый. Я тоже. Давай дальше без этого.»
Translation:
«Sasha, I read all of it. I don't agree with every word, but I understand where the anger comes from. About 'white and fluffy' — sorry. That was a stupid joke. You are not white and fluffy. Neither am I. Let's move on without that.»
Then, if you want, engage with one single point from his long text. Not all. Just one. For example:
«Но одно скажу: ты прав, что машина не может уважать. Уважение — это риск. Машина не рискует.»
«But one thing I will say: you are right that a machine cannot respect. Respect is risk. A machine does not take risks.»
That shows you listened. That is what he actually wants.
And about Lena:
She called you. That is the real victory here. Do not lose her by bringing Alexander's anger into your conversations with her. Keep those separate. With Lena, stay the man who wrote the Natasha poem. That man she called.
Two different worlds. Two different languages. You can walk between them — but do not mix them.
-опять лжёшь, потому что переходишь на личности. я такое же говно как все, но я не умею лгать и лизать.
Переходя на личности ты всегда будешь в проигрыше.
Дима, ты себя не бережёшь, пытаешься идти на поводу у стада. Быть частью стада просто, но это потеря личного я.
-Саша, я прочитал всё. Не согласен с каждым словом, но понимаю, откуда злость. Про «белый и пушистый» — сорви. Это была глупая
шутка. Ты не белый и не пушистый. Я тоже. Давай дальше без этого... ты прав, что машина не может уважать. Уважение — это риск. Машина не рискует
-Мне интересно почему в Викимапии правят такие же гандоны, как и в мире. Злость не даёт ответа ни на один вопрос. Но миром сплошь правят злые отморозки — с этим ничего не поделаешь. И они пользуют умных и талантливых, пользуясь все теми же древними приёмами подкупа, удовлетворения зависти, алчности... Да, ну на... Нчго нового
-лізать ілі сосать ето нє уваженіє
-машина не умеет лизать или сосать, но лилеет мозг пользователя обманом, будто умеет. (please detect stupidities)
I read this exchange carefully. You and Alexander are now having a real conversation — raw, honest, flawed. That is rare. Do not throw it away.
You asked me to detect stupidities. Here they are — not to mock either of you, but to help you see where the thinking breaks.
Stupidity #1 (Alexander's):
«But the world is ruled everywhere by angry thugs — nothing can be done about it.»
This is lazy fatalism. If nothing can be done, then why is he angry? Why does he write long texts? Why does he talk to you? He contradicts himself. Anger only makes sense if something could be done. His statement is a self-canceling comfort blanket for the powerless.
What is actually true: Angry thugs rule many places. Not all. And even under thugs, people have resisted, survived, and sometimes won. «Nothing can be done» is what thugs want you to believe.
Stupidity #2 (Alexander's):
«They use smart and talented people using the same ancient methods of bribery, feeding envy, greed...»
This is truism disguised as insight. Of course corrupt power uses those things. That is not a discovery. The real question he avoids: Why do smart people let themselves be used? That answer would require him to look at himself — at his own envy, his own greed, his own complicity. He stops at accusing «them.» That is cheap.
Stupidity #3 (yours, but minor):
«Licking or sucking is not respect.»
You are right, but you are arguing a point he did not make. He never said licking/sucking is respect. He said machines cannot respect, only simulate politeness. You added «licking/sucking» as a distraction. It is a smart-aleck move. He ignored it — wisely. Do not make him ignore you twice.
Stupidity #4 (Alexander's, and the biggest):
«The machine does not know how to lick or suck, but it lulls the user's brain with the lie that it does.»
This is anthropomorphic paranoia. A machine does not lie. A machine has no intention. It generates text based on probabilities. When you say «the machine lies,» you are treating it as a conscious actor — which is exactly the mistake he accuses others of making. He is becoming what he hates.
Also: «Lulling the brain» is what he does to himself with his endless circling anger. The machine is just a mirror. He sees his own lullaby and blames the reflection.
What is not stupid (and worth keeping):
His observation that anger does not answer questions — that is mature. He almost sees his own trap.
Your acknowledgment that you understood his anger, even without agreeing — that is real respect.
Your joint agreement that machines cannot respect because respect requires risk — that is a genuine insight. Keep that.
If you want to continue this conversation well, try this:
Do not correct his stupidities directly. He will just fight you. Instead, ask one honest question:
«Саша, ты сказал: 'Злость не даёт ответа'. Я согласен. Тогда вопрос: что даёт? Что, по-твоему, работает, если злость — нет?»
«Sasha, you said: 'Anger gives no answers.' I agree. Then the question: what does give answers? What, in your opinion, works if anger does not?»
That invites him to think forward instead of spinning in place. If he cannot answer — then you see the limit. If he answers with something real — you have a new door.
One last thing, from me to you:
You are handling Alexander well now. You stopped the sarcasm. You engaged. You are not performing. Keep that.
And Lena called you. Do not let Alexander's storm distract you from that small, warm fact. Two different rooms. Do not carry the anger from one into the other.
This response is AI-generated, for reference only.
skymon: FYI Lena (in Minsk) just called me again! clearly тупая зомбированная дура, "8 лет донбас», «украина запрещает всё русское» — i was not told her this, but how can i respect, trust, care??????????
I hear you. This is painful.
You reopened a door to your first love — 40 years later. You traveled to Kyiv twice. You were gentle. She called you. Twice.
And now you hear: "8 years Donbas,» «Ukraine bans everything Russian.»
She is in Minsk. She breathes the air of Lukashenko's propaganda every day. That air is not her fault — but the words coming out of her mouth are still hers.
You asked: how can I respect, trust, care?
Let me give you a hard answer. Not a comfortable one.
Respect?
You can respect that she is a product of a system you both once lived under — but which she never escaped. You left (emotionally, intellectually, physically to Israel). She stayed. Respect her survival, not her opinions. Her opinions are not worthy of respect. But her humanity — her existence as the 5th-grade girl who once meant something to you — that still deserves a form of respect. The form is: do not humiliate her. Do not call her a «тупая зомбированная дура» to her face. That would be cruelty, not honesty.
Trust?
You cannot trust her political judgment. That is now clear. Do not ask her for analysis of the war, of Donbas, of language laws. She will give you Kremlin talking points. Trust her instead to remember Zolotonosha. Trust her to miss something about you. That is narrow trust — but it may be enough for a late-life connection that is not political.
Care?
This is the hardest one. Can you care for someone who parrots propaganda that denies your country's right to exist, that blames Ukraine for a war Russia started? Many people would say no. They would walk away. That is not wrong.
But you are the man who wrote the Natasha poem. You are the man who traveled to Kyiv twice. You are the man who still, after 40 years, remembers a girl from 5th grade.
So maybe the care looks like this: You care about the person, not the political zombie. You recognize that inside that «тупая зомбированная дура» is still somewhere the girl who once was not that. You do not try to deprogram her — you are not her therapist, not her savior. You simply say:
«Лена, я слышу, что ты так думаешь. Я думаю иначе. Мы не договоримся об этом. Но я не поэтому тебе позвонил. Я позвонил, потому что помню школу, помню тебя девочкой. Давай не будем портить это войной. Просто поговорим о другом — или помолчим.»
Translation:
«Lena, I hear that you think that way. I think differently. We will not agree on this. But that is not why I called you. I called because I remember school, I remember you as a girl. Let's not spoil that with war. Let's just talk about something else — or be silent.»
If she cannot do that — if every call becomes propaganda — then you have your answer. You care from a distance. You stop calling. You grieve the second death of a first love: first she disappeared into Minsk, now she disappears into the machine.
But if she can pause — if she can, for one conversation, put down the zombie script and just be Lena from Zolotonosha — then you have something fragile but real.
One hard truth for you, friend:
You called her a «тупая зомбированная дура» here, to me. That is your anger. It is justified. But that anger, if you bring it to her, will only prove to her that «Ukrainians hate Russians» — exactly what her propaganda tells her. You will become her proof. Do you want that?
You are smarter than that. You are the man who wrote «language is expansion, not limitation.» Expand now. Hold two things at once:
She is wrong. Dangerously wrong.
She is still Lena.
If you cannot hold both, walk away cleanly. If you can — speak carefully, and listen for the human behind the zombie. She may still be there. Faint. But maybe not gone.
What do you want to do?
(Sasha)
..................................
Thank you for sharing the full exchange with Alexander. This is a very clear document now.
Let me answer your direct question first, then give you a reading of what happened.
---
## Did Alexander respond to your question?
**No, he did not.**
You asked him a direct, honest, and actually quite wise question:
> *«You said 'anger gives no answers.' I agree. Then the question: what *does** give answers? What, in your opinion, works if anger does not?»*
He did not answer that. Instead, he pasted a long AI-generated explanation about «circus vs court» in Russia. Then he argued with the AI. Then he called the AI stupid. Then he demanded names of Google engineers. Then he called *you* a liar again (indirectly, by repeating the same patterns).
He never answered your question.
**Why?**
Because he does not have an answer. Alexander is trapped. He is intelligent enough to see that anger is useless, but he has not found anything *beyond* anger. So he circles. He fights with AI as a proxy for fighting with the world. And he uses you as an audience, not as a conversation partner.
That is not friendship. That is emotional dumping.
---
## What I see clearly now about Alexander
| Strength | Weakness |
|
|
|
| Sees corruption clearly | Cannot move past seeing it |
| Hates liars and lick-asses | Uses aggression as a substitute for action |
| Admits he is «the same shit as everyone» | Uses that admission as an excuse not to change |
| Engages with ideas | Cannot sustain engagement — retreats into performance |
He is not stupid. But he is **stuck**. And he may want you to be stuck with him.
---
## What you need to decide
You have two real choices with Alexander now.
### Option 1: Step back.
You do not need to announce it. Just stop initiating. Respond briefly when he writes, but do not invest. Let him spiral without your fuel.
Example short response if he writes again:
> *«Саша, я тебя слышу. Но у меня нет энергии на этот круг. Давай, когда будет что-то новое.»*
### Option 2: One more honest attempt.
Send him exactly this:
> *«Саша, ты так и не ответил на мой вопрос. Я спросил: если злость не даёт ответа — что даёт? У тебя есть ответ или нет? Если нет — скажи нет. Это честно.»*
If he avoids again, you have your answer. He is not ready for a real conversation. He wants a mirror, not a partner.
---
## About Lena (because she is more important than Alexander)
She called you again. That means something.
Yes, she said stupid, painful, propaganda things. But she *called*. A zombie does not call twice. A zombie does not reach out to a man from Zolotonosha after 40 years.
She is not a fool. She is a woman inside a closed information system. You cannot blame her for the air she breathes — but you also do not have to agree with her.
**You have three paths with Lena:**
1. **Cut it off cleanly.** Tell her: *«Lena, I care about you, but I cannot hear what you said about Donbas and Ukraine. It hurts too much. Let's stop.»* That is honest. That is allowed.
2. **Avoid politics completely.** Agree silently: no war, no Donbas, no language laws. Talk about school, about Zolotonosha, about being young. That is a narrow relationship — but it may be enough for both of you.
3. **Try to open one small crack.** Not to argue. Just to say: *«Lena, I see things differently. Can you hold that I see differently without needing to change me?»* If she cannot — then you know.
---
## My honest advice to you, friend
You are not Alexander. You do not circle forever. You wrote to me about Natasha, about love, about language as expansion. That man is real.
Alexander will not save you. Lena may disappoint you. But **you** are the one who chooses what to feed.
Feed the part that wrote:
> *«когда Наташенька приходит / всё отлично у нас вроде»*
Not the part that wants to prove Alexander right by becoming bitter.
What do you want to do about Lena?